§ Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYasked the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been directed to the fact that Mr. John Brown, of Rushton, Northamptonshire, made application on 14th October, 1910, for the old age pension to which he became entitled on 9th January, 1911, and that his case was not considered by the pension committee for several months, so that he did not receive his pension until 10th February, thus losing several weeks' pension; if he will cause inquiries to be made into the case; and if he will see that Mr. Brown does not lose by the delay referred to?
§ Mr. BURNSI have before me an appeal in this case. The claim to a pension is dated 30th December, 1910, and the report of the pension officer recommending a pension is dated 6th January. The deci-156W sion of the pension committee appears, however, not to have been given until 3rd February, and I have addressed a communication to them on the subject. As regards the last part of the question, I may say that the Local Government Board are not empowered to authorise the payment of a pension from a date earlier than that on which the committee gave their decision.
§ Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will direct attention to the case of Thomas M'Mahon, of O'Curry's Lane, Albert Road, Kilkee, West Clare, who was in receipt of an old pension from 1st January, 1909, to 5th October, 1909, and whose claim is strongly supported by the following gentlemen: Charles Keane, farmer, of Baltard, aged 82 years; Matthew Talty, of Baltard, aged 76 years; Martin M'Mahan, of Baltard, aged 76 years; W. C. O'Doherty, J.P., chairman of the Town Commissioners of Kilkee; the Very Rev. Canon Fitzgerald, of Kilkee; and endorsed also by the Rev. W. P. Smyth, of Kilkee, and Dr. Hickey, J.P., of Kilkee; and whether, in these circumstances he will consider the advisability of the pension being restored to Thomas M'Mahon?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEM'Mahon's pension was revoked by the Local Government Board in November (not October), 1909; and I have no power to restore it. It is, however, open to him to prefer a fresh claim, supported by any evidence of age which he is now in a position to produce.
§ Mr. LUNDONasked the Chief Secretary whether, seeing that the Ballylanders pension committee county Limerick has passed the claim of Ellen Fleming on two occasions within the past year, and that evidence was given by two most respectable parties that this woman was more than seventy, he will say on what grounds the pension officer refuses to act on the recommendations of the local committee, seeing that he cannot find her age in any of the Census records nor on the parish register; and, in view of the fact that many people consider that the pension officer is prejudiced against this woman, will an inquiry be held into the whole matter?
§ Mr. BIRRELLThe Local Government Board are not aware that the claim in question has been allowed on two occasions within the past year by the Ballylanders Pension Sub-committee. The Subcommittee appear to have originally 157W allowed Ellen Fleming a pension, but on a question raised by the pension officer on the ground that she was under the statutory age they decided in November, 1909, that she was not entitled to any pension. Her appeal to the Board against this decision was late and could not therefore be entertained. The Board have discharged their functions regarding the case on the only occasion on which it has come before them, and they are not empowered to hold any further inquiry as suggested. If the claimant considers that she has reached the statutory age, it is open to her to make a fresh claim.
§ Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary if he can say why the Local Government Board refuse to give Kate Lane, of Newcastle West, and now of Ardagh, in the county of Limerick, a pension of 5s. a week; is he aware that her marriage certificate records that she was forty years of age when she married in the year 1870, and that James Moore, of Churchtown, Newcastle West, who is seventy-six years of age, stated that he believes her to be more than seventy years; and whether, as she cannot get the certificate of her birth, there being no record of it, the Local Government Board will reconsider their decision in the matter?
§ Mr. BIRRELLThe Local Government Board upheld the pension officer's appeal on the ground that there was no evidence that Kate Lane had attained the statutory age. The marriage certificate forwarded to the Board states that she was married on the 7th November, 1871, but does not record her age; and in another communication furnished on her behalf it is alleged that she was married at the age of 32. It is not open to the Board to reconsider their decision.
§ Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary whether he was aware that the Monegay sub-committee granted Patrick Hartnett, of Inchebawn, Templeglantine, in the county of Limerick, a pension, believing him to be seventy years of age, there being no proof of his age, but on the appeal of the pension officer in March, 1910, the Local Government Board deprived him of it; can he say on what ground the Local Government Board refused it; and what age did they consider him to be?
§ Mr. BIRRELLThe Local Government Board upheld the pension officer's appeal against the sub-committee's award of a158W pension to Hartnett on the ground that there was no evidence of his having attained the statutory age. They are unable to express any opinion as to his actual age.
§ Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that Mrs. Kate Collins, of Newcastle West, applicant for an old-age pension, stated to the local pension committee that she was born in Garryduff, Monegay, Newcastle West, county Limerick, in the year 1838; and whether, as there is no direct proof of her age but her statement and that she lived in Abbeyfeale in the year 1851, which later statement appears to be contrary to what appears in the 1851 Census, which sets out that a person of the name lived in Shangarry in that year while she says she left it two years previously, the Local Government Board will direct their pension officer to again inquire into the case, as from her appear ance she would be taken to be over seventy years of age?
§ Mr. BIRRELLThe papers in this case are not now in the possession of the Local Government Board, and they have no information as to where the claimant resided in 1851, or as to the townland in which the Kate Collins found in the Census Return of 1851 was recorded as living. The pension officer reported that the claimant's name did not appear in the Return of her parents' family in 1841, and that her age was recorded as three years in 1851. Presumably the family was traced in the town-land in which she stated they were residing in these years, as searches are made on the basis of the information given by claimants. Apart, however, from the question as to whether the proper family was found in the Census Returns, there was no evidence that Kate Collins had reached the statutory age, and for this reason the Board upheld the pension officer's appeal. They are not empowered to reconsider their decision or to give any instructions to the pension officer who if not under their control.
§ Mr. GUINEYasked the Chief Secretary if he is aware that a pension was granted by the Kanturk pensions committee, county Cork, to Margaret Finn, of Kanturk, whose age cannot be traced in the Census of the years 1841 or 1851, but who produced evidence of a satisfactory nature from an old age pensioner and other aged people who knew her since childhood; and will he explain why this pension has not been paid to her?
159W
§ Mr. BIRRELLAn appeal has been lodged by the pension officer against the decision of the Kanturk pension sub-committee awarding a pension to Margaret Finn, and the Local Government Board are at present investigating the case.